Did a ufo hit wind turbine in Conisholme UK? See picture and news article..

I think that it is indicative of the state of "UFO" investigation in the UK today that this case has been so poorly investigated.

Certainly, anybody with an interest in the matter would like to see "hard evidence" of a craft, but, all we have so far is conjecture, ifs, buts and maybes.

Considering that the site has, allegedly, only recently been the subject of security administration, there was plenty of time to observe the site and obtain accurate surveys of anomalies that may provide evidence to the cause of the occurrence. This has not happened.

It is no surprise that the site is now secure, this is to be expected purely from the point of view that sufficient exposure has been given to the site to attract "souvenir" hunters that may take away vital evidence of a forensic nature, useful to Ecotricity in determining the cause of the failure.

The "sheared bolt" that caused the incident may be in somebody's pocket!

A non-destructive survey could have provided a wealth of information but this has been approached in a sensationalist manner prior to any definite conclusions being made. Surely the greatest sensation would be proof of a collision by an unknown craft, possible of extra-terrestrial origin - but this conclusion simply cannot be determined due to the lack lustre performance of the UK's "UFO Professionals".

In any event, Ockham's Razor applies and we must discount all natural causes (whether man-made or by nature) first of all - whether malfunction caused by manufacture and/or operation, collision of an aircraft or impact stress caused by falling "frozen piss & #".

These conclusions excluded by evidence, we could then ponder the remaining explanations. The fact is, "we" have fumbled the ball on this and we can only hope that the "UFO Professionals" get their act together and start approaching these cases with a forensic mindset, as if investigating a crime-scene. Have none of the professionals seen an episode of CSI at least????

In the event that there was an external "craft" impetus to the incident, we can only now hope that "Ecotricity" is not "silenced", otherwise, this event is now quite firmly in the realms of conjecture.

Personally, I believe that the event was caused by malfunction - in light of the available evidence - however, I am open to other suggestions should the evidence come to light from reputable and verifiable sources.

Just for the record, impact effects are a function of energy rather than just velocity or mass. Statements that indicate the mass of an object needed to produce the effects seen in photographs are invalid at this point, an object a quarter of the mass but travelling at twice the speed would have the same kinetic energy so anything that indicates something the "size of a cow" are irrelevant. Visible effects of "bending" in the blades is a function of size, fair enough, but I haven't seen anybody indicating that they had their extendible tape-measure out...

Can we stop the bickering since the forensic evidence for any conclusion is severely lacking at the moment, especially in the public domain. Probability of events is what I have based my own conclusions on, that is all we can do at the moment.

EDIT: Corrected "Quarter" mass from "Half"

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube


"Personally, I believe that the event was caused by malfunction - in light of the available evidence - however, I am open to other suggestions should the evidence come to light from reputable and verifiable sources. "

What do you think happened?

Or rather, what do you think has the highest probability of being the impacting object, if any?

*Whatever it was, it would have to have been rather sturdy as no wrecked aircraft has been found or reported missing in the area. But then again, a strike to the fuselage might not even down a larger, stronger plane.

I'm befuddled by this incident, but I know the explanation is likely to be prosaic, and even if it isn't - the explanation we will be given most certainly will be.

reply to post by SugarCube


That is a very interesting post on the dynamics of a blade comming off at speed.However there are photo's that have been posted on this thread that clearly show the blade on the ground directly underneath the turbine.Furthermore there are also with those pictures ,photos of the damage done to the base of the tower including the steps leading up to the door in the base of the tower. So please once and for all, can we lay to rest the claims that the blade flew off and landed somewhere.Unless of course it was some big cover up and the blade was placed under the turbine and damage was done on purpose to the steps. I doubt that very much.



[edit on 12-1-2009 by tarifa37]

reply to post by SugarCube

I think that it is indicative of the state of "UFO" investigation in the UK today that this case has been so poorly investigated.

saddly - i could not agree more - nick pope is IMHO particularly funny - he seems to be " investigating " from the saftey of various teeevee studios - and simply pulls " facts " out of his arse to make himself look important and knowlegable

The fact is, "we" have fumbled the ball on this and we can only hope that the "UFO Professionals" get their act together

please do not generalise

i cannot comment on what others have done - but as conisholme is over 160 miles from my home - and i have no car - conducting any sort of usefull onsite investigation is way beyond my means - as it would cost me > 200 quid to travel down there - stay in a B&B for a few nights and cover incidentals

however i have sent some quite detailed questions to both ecotricity [ 34 questions ] and the german blade manufacturer [ 21 questions ]

addressing all the issues i could think of - and await " real " responses - both have mail bot ` we have received your inquiry and it has been passed to the correct dept ` auto responders

if i get usefull responses - i will post them here - but i have done ` something `

as for ` UFO Proffesionals ` - Most are IMHO useless idiots - not fit to be left unsupervised

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SugarCube

 

"Personally, I believe that the event was caused by malfunction - in light of the available evidence - however, I am open to other suggestions should the evidence come to light from reputable and verifiable sources. "

What do you think happened?

Or rather, what do you think has the highest probability of being the impacting object, if any?

*Whatever it was, it would have to have been rather sturdy as no wrecked aircraft has been found or reported missing in the area. But then again, a strike to the fuselage might not even down a larger, stronger plane.

I'm befuddled by this incident, but I know the explanation is likely to be prosaic, and even if it isn't - the explanation we will be given most certainly will be.

Hi Exuberant1, the most probably explanation at this point is that a technical malfunction occurred at the hub connector to the blade. This could have been as a result of a manufacture fault, leading to a stress fracture that caused catastrophic failure.

The hub connection is affected by many many forces, not least the torsional effects of the rotation of the hub and blades, the centripetal effects of the blades turning with higher velocities, the stresses creating a virtual "loci" about which the blade naturally wants to rotate, focussing on a specific weak point (i.e. the "stem" of the blade) that may be just beyond the actual connector to the hub (probably a stronger point).

Extreme cold weather may have affected the ability of connective components to withstand even the "static" forces when the blades were stationary - quite literally, it "fell off".

In the process of falling (for all practical intents and purposes since velocities were not particularly high due to negligible wind conditions), the malfunctioned blade connected with it's immediate neighbour and created the impact damage observed in photos and fell to land at the base of the mast.

I do not discount the possibility that something impacted with the primary malfunctioned blade, only to say the likelihood of impact with ice is so negligible as to induce me to enter the lottery this week because I have more chance of winning that than for ice impact to be the culprit.

Ice build-up "could" have induced increased stress but the effects would have been the same as for normal stress fracture. However, Ice build-up was not evident and in no way changes the results of the fall of the blade. Ice build-up would have produced less extra "weight" than the centripetal forces acting in even a moderate spin rate (say 15rpm). Combined effects would be notable at higher velocities but again, the lack of wind suggests that this would not have been hugely decisive.

In terms of pure conjecture, there are many possibilities that could be pursued but there is no evidence to suggest that they are near to the truth at this stage.

A collision would "most likely" have caused damage to the colliding object in the event that it was an "aircraft" of some description. Airworthiness may have been compromised, I have covered this topic before, but may have been negligible in the event that a colliding craft was not travelling fast but acting more as a "bulldozer".

This is unlikely of course, the limits of engineering of the blades is greater than the "bulldozer" effects of pushing or pulling it with a helicopter, say. heavy load helicopters are designed to product strong vertical lift - not enough horizontal force to bulldoze a wind-turbine blade.

IF there was a collision, a big big if, then the other craft was VERY lucky since there is no public domain evidence of wreckage of any kind from a "3rd party".

So, although I don't discount other possibilities, until there is further evidence the probability is that the failure was purely mechanical.

Originally posted by LincolnUK

Originally posted by Zemouk
Yes read your posts, pretty funny that many people have picked it up and not just me. You were trolling saying it could not have been the cold weather stating that it was impossible. Now some expert says it could have been down to that... Find it funny also that you joined on the 8th.

Many people have picked up what?

It is not an expert saying that it was cold weather at all. The 'expert' is Fraser McLachlan, chief executive of GCube who insures the turbines. He's not an expert on their design or likely cause of their failure. He runs an insurance company.

And by adding on, "the cold weather might have been a possibility" does not make that any more likely than him adding on "elvis coming and chopping it off with a hacksaw is a possibility".

There are dozens of 'possibilities'!

Oh and 'trolling' saying it wasn't the cold, no I don't think so. Trolling based on hard evidence of the weather conditions in that area compared to the far more extreme temperatures that the same turbines in north scotland were surviving perfectly adequately with.

If you can produce any evidence to the contrary then I would love to see it?

What's comical about the 8th of January?

Have you any evidence that those turbines in Scotland are exactly the same? Also you again seem to ignore the fact that everyone who has said weather was an aspect have said Weather ALONG WITH mechanical failure. Going on scientific information on just what the blade was made of without 1) realising the blade is held on with bolts and 2) weather reaction WITH mechanical failure. I was not the one stating I worked for a weather company etc and that this was an Impossible explanation...

As for the join date, we have a hell of a lot of people come on here to comment on specific cases and troll the forums to what they believe without taking a proper stance at what many others are saying. If you know this forums then you will see it all the time. People join for 3 days which only aggravates subjects and older members of this site. It's pretty self explanatory that something ELSE must have been wrong for 1 of the blades to break out of the 15 photographed.

One thing I hate on this site is when things COULD have happened and people come on here and tell everyone "That's impossible, what about the ones in Scotland where weather is colder", especially people who ignore other aspects which others say along with the claims. That's the only sentence you have came out with on EVERY single reply.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Zemouk]

Originally posted by SugarCube
Just for the record, impact effects are a function of energy rather than just velocity or mass. - - - an object half the mass but travelling at twice the speed would have the same kinetic energy

No so. If you were familiar with kinetic energy calculations, you'd know that Kinetic Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.
Hence in your example, the faster, smaller object has twice the kinetic energy of the other.

WG3

issues of ice

for everyone who says it was not cold enough for icing :

as for the ` argument ` of :

well it was colder in scotland

so what ??????????

the mere presence of ice does not cause automatic failure - excess ice only exploits other faults / weeknesses

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Sorry about the generalisation of UFO investigators :-)

I understand that it is expensive to travel from one end of the country to another, but this in itself is indicative of the poor approach to organisation within the community. We have very good private individuals rather than a nationwide network operating to "professional standards" that can respond to such events.

Nick Pope, I guess, has a mortgage to pay and in any event he has to earn a living somehow and I do not blame him for trading on his former position. Yes, I agree that he seems to have veered toward sensationalism rather than the voice of reason but again, it is about entertainment rather than investigation.

Comments that intimate that "they" are hiding something serve the purpose of sensationalism but detract from the very real necessity to protect private property and forensic evidence from "UFO tourism".

I would expect the scene of a train crash to be cordoned off even if there were no loss of life simply for Health & Safety reasons let alone the prospect of interfering with an ongoing investigation. Simply putting up a "fence" in the middle of nowhere isn't necessarily going to stop anybody!

I think that my major gripe is not that this could turn out to be something relatively mundane, but that even after so many years of activity in the UFO field the UK is still without a consolidated investigative network with operating standards that can be scrutinised and held for accountability.

In any other circumstances, the findings of individuals will merely be dismissed. Leading characters such as Nick Pope are currently inducing ridicule of the whole subject matter, not deliberately, but by virtue of the "gossip" mentality that they promote for entertainment and a paycheque.

In the event that the conspiracy theories are correct, we play right into "the man's" hands by engaging in befuddled dramatics and undertaking conjecture of the most absurd level with no foundation in physical reality.

Ohhh, have I said too much? I'll get me coat...

reply to post by waveguide3


HaHa... Yes, quite correct, thanks for that WaveGuide3. My point was that equivalent kinetic energy can be induced in objects of greatly varying mass by virtue of velocity. I apologise for misleading anybody by my earlier statement.

To put the record straight, E = (mV^2)/2

Where E is the kinetic energy, m is the mass and V the velocity.

example: in terms of kinetic energy:

- a 100kg body at 100m/s is equivalent to a 4kg body at 500m/s

EDIT: Added example.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SugarCube]

ok to be honest ive read all the posts and its all guessing. I live in England and the story was in the paper. If any of you have see the picture then you clearly wou;d have seen that one propeller was completely gone whilst the one next to it is mismantled to show that only something could have hit it. With no debris found, no wreckages of anything around the turbine that is still asfixed to the propellers, no storm or no lighting would do this damage. Think about it

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
issues of ice

for everyone who says it was not cold enough for icing :

as for the ` argument ` of :

well it was colder in scotland

so what ??????????

the mere presence of ice does not cause automatic failure - excess ice only exploits other faults / weeknesses

Also if it was not icy on that night and was for the 3 days and nights leading up to the night then it could be explainable as being ice weakening a mechanical / manufacture failure when the ice melted (as you say).

Originally posted by SugarCube
I understand that it is expensive to travel from one end of the country to another, but this in itself is indicative of the poor approach to organisation within the community.

I read that as though you are suggesting the ATS community get their act together and draw up a map of all our individual locations - possibly using the google-map-pin feature. and what would be better would be for each individual to set a search radius as to how far they are willing to travel at the drop of a hat, for any given ATS event. Perhaps someone who knows how could set up a website with this feature on, and then when it gets going it might be incorporated into ATS itself

It's a great idea, count me in.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Wig]

It's a great idea, count me in.

HaHa, I was in no way suggesting that ATS members take a day off work/school/college/univesity/skiving (delete as applicable) and travel "at the drop of a hat for any given ATS event".

My point was that the organisational attributes of the existing "UFO investigative community" leaves a lot to be desired even after so many years of apparent activity. There appears to be no nationwide coverage of a common level of "professionalism" determined by operational standards - evident in the response to this particular event.

Unfortunately, I doubt that the mechanism you suggest would produce the results we need to usefully further the study of such events. Surely, ATS could be used as forum for promotion of findings, but such an organisation needs to be based on a "real" community that meets, is geographically viable and has devised standards to adhere to.

EDIT - HeHe, your response scanned differently after you had edited it :-) I think that iy may be worthwhile, certainly something to think about because we can't seem to rely on the existing "infrastructure". Hey, maybe we can even have badges - "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges..." (Blazing Saddles)

Give it a go...

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by Zemouk

Have you any evidence that those turbines in Scotland are exactly the same? Also you again seem to ignore the fact that everyone who has said weather was an aspect have said Weather ALONG WITH mechanical failure. Going on scientific information on just what the blade was made of without 1) realising the blade is held on with bolts and 2) weather reaction WITH mechanical failure. I was not the one stating I worked for a weather company etc and that this was an Impossible explanation...

As for the join date, we have a hell of a lot of people come on here to comment on specific cases and troll the forums to what they believe without taking a proper stance at what many others are saying. If you know this forums then you will see it all the time. People join for 3 days which only aggravates subjects and older members of this site. It's pretty self explanatory that something ELSE must have been wrong for 1 of the blades to break out of the 15 photographed.

One thing I hate on this site is when things COULD have happened and people come on here and tell everyone "That's impossible, what about the ones in Scotland where weather is colder", especially people who ignore other aspects which others say along with the claims. That's the only sentence you have came out with on EVERY single reply.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Zemouk]

Yes I do have evidence, just go on to the Ecotricity website, you'll see the different models of turbine used in different locations. At Pebbles in Scotland is Ecotricity's and the UK's most powerful windfarm.

People are not just suggesting that that ice in conjunction with mechanical failure could be the issue at all. Numerous pictures, videos and comments have been made about a 'build up of ice on the blade causing catastrophic failure of the turbine due to the weight build up'.

That is what I'm trying to suggest is massively unlikely (not impossible) due to the lack of wind and extreme temperature required.

You state that the blade is held on with bolts, perhaps you could expand on your obvious indepth technical knowledge here and tell me exactly how the blade is attached to the hub? If you look at the picture I posted showing a cut through of the particular model in question, you will realise that the blade is screwed into the hub, then I believe welded and finally bolted in place with locking nuts. None of these things can be affected by -10 temperatures.

When I went to Finland in research of sustainable energy products, the same style of turbine was being used AND FUNCTIONING in minus 30degrees-



As for the posted picture showing a lightly frozen puddle, that is more to do with the heat being removed by the ground than it is the air temperature. There are fundamental differences in ground and air temperature for that very reason.

What i'm trying to suggest to you is that due to the materials involved in the construction, and the way the blades and hub are engineered, I can personally assure you that temperature would have played no part in the failure.

Now you don't have to believe that, but I have presented all the facts for you to see. I just think we'd be better off focusing efforts on the other possibilities. Purely an opinion though of course.

Whilst i appreciate your points regarding members joining just for a few days, I've been on ATS for a few years, but never really had anything worth contributing until now.

Originally posted by LincolnUK

Originally posted by tarifa37
reply to post by tarifa37

 

Just in case no one read my post above here it is again with important update I will put this below. www.telegraph.co.uk...

However, foreign debris was found at the site during an initial search.

This to me, says that something could well of hit it.What else could foreign debris mean?

At last! A decent finding by someone! Star for you!!

That's worth a bit more investigation for sure, 'foreign debris' can surely only mean debris not associated with the turbine?

I agree, 'foreign debris' must be debris they have found that they have established has not come from the turbine itself,of course that does not necessarily mean that It came from the object that struck the turbine(if that is what happened) it could just be nondescript debris that was on the ground near the turbine that could well have been there before the blade fell off.I would imagine that they did a thorough search of the area and anything that they found on the ground that they could not identify would have been shipped to the lab for further analysis.

Hmmmmm. thats strange indeed.

Ice Whatever, why not just blame it on flares as usual. I think they build these things to withstand ice & tolerances are established so ice would not affect the structural integrity of the blades. Smart people designed these things.

utterly ridiculous. Unless the witness is a toddler sure. Why do skeptics instantly devolve the witness testimony to that of a 3 year old who cant tell the difference between a massive static structure with a light on it, and instantly jump to the conclusion they thought it was a UFO??!! GIVE ME A BREAK

Originally posted by and14263
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

 

I'm more leaning towards lightening theory but for your info' the turbines do have a light on them. a really bright red light which in itself can easily be mistaken for a UFO at distance.

If people are saying it was a UFO, they are guessing. If people say it was ice.. they too, are just guessing at this point. But... the company that makes the things says it was NOT ice, it was NOT lightning. Why are people here so quick to dismiss the experts claims? Oh, that's right.. I forgot, this board is populated with people who clearly know more than the experts themselves.

Another thing of note: people dismiss thinking people's claims far too easily. Why did THIS failure stand out? I certainly don't recall any other failed wind turbines being attributed to UFO activity. Those who were there feel something was strange going on. The couple did not see ice. They did not see anything apparent that would cause this. They heard a noise that was loud enough to make them think something collided with it. Not a blade simply falling into another one. Someone reported seeing an object over the turbine fields.

So while I am far from considering the fact that octopus aliens were trying to abduct what they thought was a long-lost cousin, I'm also not going to just dismiss the claims out of hand, nor say that it was ice or something else, when the experts in this field says it was not.